Batting order thread

[David in Jackson]

Saw today that MoBerg might hit 2nd.   My main question: why doesn't Burke leadoff and Biggio hit 6-7th?

[mihoba]

Isn't that a lovely thought? MoBerg will think he's an on base machine (again), and Burke will think he should be a power hitter.

Not again, ugh.

[Taras Bulba]

Saw today that MoBerg might hit 2nd.   My main question: why doesn't Burke leadoff and Biggio hit 6-7th?

I think the 3,000 hit thing is a little bit of a consideration.  I used "little bit" because Garner likes to say that a lot.

[MikeyBoy]

Burke leading off and Bidge hitting down in the order is likely for some point in the season, but Biggio comes out of the chute on fire, so as long as he is tearing the cover off the ball, I say let him lead off. Regarding Ensberg hitting second, I'm not a fan of it, for the playoffs maybe, but over the course of the season, I'd prefer AE.

[pravata]

Isn't that a lovely thought? MoBerg will think he's an on base machine (again), and Burke will think he should be a power hitter.

Not again, ugh.

Genius huh.  Garner said that the only way that would work is if Scott or Lane is doing the job Ensberg was supposed to do.  Burke has been working on using the whole field, Garner has him doing pushups if he trys to jerk even the hangingest of curves.

[Momus]

The Astros lineup figures to be a bit of an enigma, so you've got to tackle it systematically.

* You have two good hitters, so you slot them in the 3-4 spots.

* You have Everett, Ausmus, and a pitcher, and you put them in at 7-8-9 since you can't have one DH in the NL, let alone three.

* You have a future HOFer who was the best leadoff man in the league during his era, so you put him at the top until he gets his magic number and/or someone else steps up and actually takes the spot away from him.

* Assuming Ensberg's all-too-brief experiment with testicles is truly over, you might as well put him in at #2 and hope he picks up another hundred walks to go along with his lack of power production.

* You put Lane/Scott in the 5-hole and hope for the best, and that leaves Burke at #6.

Realistically, beyond 3-4 and 8-9, we'll probably be seeing a lot of different lineups with this team.

[Bench]

Also, Loretta will be getting plenty of AB's. I figure when he plays, he'll be hitting second with Burke leading off.

[HudsonHawk]

The Astros lineup figures to be a bit of an enigma, so you've got to tackle it systematically.

* You have two good hitters, so you slot them in the 3-4 spots.

* You have Everett, Ausmus, and a pitcher, and you put them in at 7-8-9 since you can't have one DH in the NL, let alone three.

* You have a future HOFer who was the best leadoff man in the league during his era, so you put him at the top until he gets his magic number and/or someone else steps up and actually takes the spot away from him.

* Assuming Ensberg's all-too-brief experiment with testicles is truly over, you might as well put him in at #2 and hope he picks up another hundred walks to go along with his lack of power production.

* You put Lane/Scott in the 5-hole and hope for the best, and that leaves Burke at #6.

Realistically, beyond 3-4 and 8-9, we'll probably be seeing a lot of different lineups with this team.

If you're going to have Burke out there (and that wasn't *my* idea), I'd swap Burke and Ensberg.  In the end though, you're right...there are going to be a lot of different lineups used.

[Outlawscotty]

Garner has him doing pushups if he trys to jerk even the hangingest of curves.

This is outstanding and funny if it's true.  Like a middle schooler last in sprints or something.

[austro]

This is outstanding and funny if it's true.  Like a middle schooler last in sprints or something.

While watching a weak effort by the Owls against the Horns last evening, we all just sat there shaking our heads as a Rice baserunner rounded second, paused and looked back at right field, and then proceeded on to third (where he was safe; whether that spared him a lecture from Graham is unclear). My friend then related a story of how his father, when helping coach my friend's Little League team, would cut a switch off a tree and run alongside the kids whenever they ran the bases during practice. If they looked back while rounding the base instead of looking at their coach, they received immediate feedback.

That was 40 years ago, and you probably couldn't get away with it today, but those kids learned to watch the coach.

[pravata]

This is outstanding and funny if it's true.  Like a middle schooler last in sprints or something.

"I don't care if (Burke) hits .400 the rest of the way," Garner said. "If he's pulling the ball, that's not a good swing for him. I was honest with him. We're not looking at the batting average now. We're not looking at his on-base percentage. We want to see him stay through the middle of the diamond."
http://www.orangewhoopass.com/forums/index.php?topic=100649.0

[JimR]

Ensberg must hit 5-6 and drive in runs. if he does not, get rid of him.

[HurricaneDavid]

Regarding Ensberg hitting second, I'm not a fan of it, for the playoffs maybe, but over the course of the season, I'd prefer AE.

Why the difference?

[Momus]

Regarding Ensberg hitting second, I'm not a fan of it, for the playoffs maybe, but over the course of the season, I'd prefer AE.

Can someone explain this to me? We don't have to go stat crazy, but why do you want the guy with the .290 OBP hitting at the top of the lineup? As I recall, Garner tried this a bit in 2005 but we didn't see it much last year.

[JimR]

b/c there is more to hitting second than OBP

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Anyone here seen Ensberg's ABs?  Is he not aggressive?  I thought all signs were that he was doing what he was supposed to do, swing aggressively and drive in runs behind Berkman and Lee.   

[Kevin]

Ensberg must hit 5-6 and drive in runs. if he does not, get rid of him.

Totally agree. At this point in his career, if a move to the #2 slot is necessary to give him enough confidence to be serviceable as a 5 hitter, there's a permanent issue and they don't need him. Derek Bell redux.

Excuse my ignorance, but did the club put forth any real effort in keeping Aubrey Huff, or was he more or less seen as a rental for '06 and/or was one of these guys got too overpriced too quickly this offseason?

[Taras Bulba]

Anyone here seen Ensberg's ABs?  Is he not aggressive?  I thought all signs were that he was doing what he was supposed to do, swing aggressively and drive in runs behind Berkman and Lee.   

It depends what moon phase we're in.  Word is that he gets aggressive on the quarter but becomes morose and melancholy on a new moon.  He can go either way on a full.  Consult your almanac, accordingly.

[JimR]

Excuse my ignorance, but did the club put forth any real effort in keeping Aubrey Huff, or was he more or less seen as a rental for '06 and/or was one of these guys got too overpriced too quickly this offseason?

word was that Huff thought too much of himself and priced himself out of their market. in addition, no one would take Ensberg so they let Huff walk.

[Fredia]

It depends what moon phase we're in.  Word is that he gets aggressive on the quarter but becomes morose and melancholy on a new moon.  He can go either way on a full.  Consult your almanac, accordingly.

so basically what you are saying is moberg is a wherewolf? that would explain so much. i wonder if anyone has done any studies on if the moon phases do affect batting averages

[Russ99]

Also, Loretta will be getting plenty of AB's. I figure when he plays, he'll be hitting second with Burke leading off.

I'm hoping Loretta's going to be a fixture in the lineup at different positions, since he's the perfect #2 hitter for the Astros. I'm also hoping Loretta's presence spurs Everett on, since if Adam flops at the plate again and Biggio has a stronger year than expected, Loretta could end up in a platoon at SS.

[mihoba]

so basically what you are saying is moberg is a wherewolf? that would explain so much. i wonder if anyone has done any studies on if the moon phases do affect batting averages

Of course they do, just not in baseball.

[Fredia]

Sure, Coach, which is why I said we don't have to go crazy with the stats. But...what skills does the #2 need that Everett really has? He doesn't make enough contact. He runs reasonably well, though he isn't a basestealer. What does he do, exactly?

he has a magic glove . sometimes its not all about the runs you know

[Momus]

b/c there is more to hitting second than OBP

Sure, Coach, which is why I said we don't have to go crazy with the stats. But...what skills does the #2 need that Everett really has? He doesn't make enough contact. He runs reasonably well, though he isn't a basestealer. What does he do, exactly?

[Momus]

he has a magic glove . sometimes its not all about the runs you know

I don't want to bench him...he's fantastic defensively. Does his unquestioned ability as a shortstop somehow make him a better two-hitter?

[EasTexAstro]

I'm also hoping Loretta's presence spurs Everett on, since if Adam flops at the plate again and Biggio has a stronger year than expected, Loretta could end up in a platoon at SS.

Wha?
Never happen. Loretta may play SS to give AE a break sometimes, but a platoon is crazy. Adam Everrett is the shortstop and that will not change.

[EasTexAstro]

I don't want to bench him...he's fantastic defensively. Does his unquestioned ability as a shortstop somehow make him a better two-hitter?

I'm not the best one to explain these kinds of things, but I'll throw out some things.

The 2 hitter has to be a good situational hitter. If there is a runner on, he needs to move him over, even if it means sacrificing himself. The following bats are there to get the run in. He needs to be able to make good contact when a hit-n-run is called, even if it means sacrificing himself. He needs to be able to avoid hitting into double plays. He needs to be a smart baserunner and, if not a big basestealer, at least a threat, but mostly smart.

AE fits that role.

[pravata]

I don't want to bench him...he's fantastic defensively. Does his unquestioned ability as a shortstop somehow make him a better two-hitter?

Course not, ignore that.  Everett tries to hit the ball to all fields.  He runs well and typically puts the bat on the ball.  His instruction from the team is to make contact and work the count.  This fits well in the second spot in the context of the Astros.  Ensberg's job is to jump on the first pitch he can hit and drive the ball.  He's more suited for the 5th or 6th spot, on this team.

[strosrays]

Course not, ignore that.  Everett tries to hit the ball to all fields.  He runs well and typically puts the bat on the ball.  His instruction from the team is to make contact and work the count.  This fits well in the second spot in the context of the Astros.  Ensberg's job is to jump on the first pitch he can hit and drive the ball.  He's more suited for the 5th or 6th spot, on this team.

The things you and Eastex Fwy said are the most important.  Given those, I would add that Everett at #2 spreads out the power/RBI potential in the lineup more effectively than if AE is hitting #7.  The idea a #2 simply must be a high OBP guy is a relatively new one, and comes either from fantasy ball or certain Bill James' postcedents, or both.  Sure, if one's lineup is stacked top-to-bottom with good hitters, pick a "god of walks" for your #2, and set sail.  But now and historically, most non-NYY lineups have had inefficiencies here and there; certainly the 2007 Astros will.  For the most part #2 has always been one of the most least well-defined lineup slots in terms of what attributes the hitter there should possess.   But very generally, managers have often used the #2 hole for a guy like AE, offensively as an adjunct to the #1 (that doesn't mean just sac bunts, either), and as a lineup "spacer", for lack of a better term, in order to better allocate the offensive resources they do have at hand.

I understand the argument one wants to maximize the amount of one's best hitters' at bats, and a #2 will come up a couple dozen times more during a season than a #7 will.  Makes sense, too; but it is kind of a superficial argument, since it does not seem to take into account the dynamics of the rest of the lineup the #2 guy is hitting in.  Would it be better to have a high OBP guy who can also hit at #2 and an intermittent singles hitter at #7?  Or rather a guy of narrowly defined (but perhaps useful) offensive skills at #2 and another RBI guy at #7?  I also understand the argument that winning teams usually score more runs in one big inning than their opponent does over the whole game.  But still is it better to bunch all the best hitters to the top of a lineup and have every third inning or so consist of a 7-8-9 hitting a combined .220 with no power?  Or rather bury one of the proposed 7-8-9 amongst more accomplished hitters at the top of the lineup, and have the RBI potential of the lineup cover slots 1-7 instead of 1-6?

I don't really know the answers in empirical terms, but I sometimes wonder if things like this are taken into account at all when one looks at lineup building strictly in terms of OBP or OPS.

[Andyzipp]

Excuse my ignorance, but did the club put forth any real effort in keeping Aubrey Huff, or was he more or less seen as a rental for '06 and/or was one of these guys got too overpriced too quickly this offseason?

What Raup said.  The Astros were keen on Huff and vice versa.  2 conditions had to apply.  Ensberg had to be dealt, and Huff had to be reasonable.

Condition 1 never occurred. No team was interested in Ensberg (and all of his contract) without ducktapping him to players like Patton, Pence, Oswalt, etc.

Condition 2 ended up being too expensive to consider without condidtion 1 taking place.  On the other hand, Baltimore will be out of the running before Memorial Day, so Houston could always reacquire him.  Maybe we could trade Oswalt again.

I'd deal Ensberg for some Crabs.  And not the kind from Maryland, but actual crabs from a Tranny named Baltimore.

[CrawfordBoxes]

Ensberg is going to bounce back. The #2 hole will suit him fine. He can take a more relaxed approach to the plate with Lance behind him. Whatever the course of action is...everett #2 is a problem.

[JimR]

everett #2 is a problem.


no, he would not be.

[Andyzipp]

Ensberg is going to bounce back. The #2 hole will suit him fine. He can take a more relaxed approach to the plate with Lance behind him. Whatever the course of action is...everett #2 is a problem.

Are you serious?  I'm not arguing that he might do well batting second, but his whole problem is he's too damn relaxed, watching hittable pitch, after hittable pitch roll by like he's "Morgan at Bat"...with the same result.

OBP is not all a 2 hitter is responsible for.

[CrawfordBoxes]

Same situation as a couple years ago. He batted 2 and I think he led the league in sacrafice bunts before his wrist injury but we dont have somebody like Ichiro leading off giving him all those opportunities. Hes better off flying out at 7th and letting Ausmus end the inning with a ground ball double play.

[CrawfordBoxes]

Are you serious?  I'm not arguing that he might do well batting second, but his whole problem is he's too damn relaxed, watching hittable pitch, after hittable pitch roll by like he's "Morgan at Bat"...with the same result.

OBP is not all a 2 hitter is responsible for.

Yeah, I suppose "more relaxed" wasn't the best way to put it. But I definitely think that he will be able to just be more loose with his swing. As long as he's not taking the same approach he did for the World Series I'm fine.

[Astroholic]

Same situation as a couple years ago. He batted 2 and I think he led the league in sacrafice bunts before his wrist injury but we dont have somebody like Ichiro leading off giving him all those opportunities. Hes better off flying out at 7th and letting Ausmus end the inning with a ground ball double play.

I don't ever recall having a player like Ichiro on the team, especially when Adam was hitting second.  I think the stros had the same leadoff hitter then that they do now (of coarse an older version).  Endberg and his "deer in the head lights approach" is not the answer in the 2 slot.

[CrawfordBoxes]

My point exactly. Biggio isn't getting any younger so I dont anticipate Everett to have an abundance of situations where he can lay down a bunt.

[Astroholic]

My point exactly. Biggio isn't getting any younger so I dont anticipate Everett to have an abundance of situations where he can lay down a bunt.

So you would rather have "the weak hitting version" of Morgan behind Biggio?

[utastro]

I think the point is that Ensberg gets on base more often than Everett.  Now the table is set for Berkman and Lee.  It would be nice if the #2 hitter could move Biggio around the bases a little first, but the second best thing is to get on in front of the big guys.  That's my interpretation of Garner's comments.

[JimR]

all one knows is that Ensberg batting mostly 5th got on base more than AE batting mostly 7th. no one knows what either will do batting 2nd fulltime. i cannot believe anyone wants Ensberg in a "give yourself up" spot. that's what the 2 hole is.

i repeat. if Mo does not drive in runs at 5 or 6, stake him to an ant bed.

[Astroholic]

I think the point is that Ensberg gets on base more often than Everett.  Now the table is set for Berkman and Lee.  It would be nice if the #2 hitter could move Biggio around the bases a little first, but the second best thing is to get on in front of the big guys.  That's my interpretation of Garner's comments.

I know what the point is, I just don't agree with the point.  Morgan is/was a power hitter that has no business in the 2 slot, just as D Bell (previously pointed out) had no reason to be there.  The only reason Morgan is even being mentioned in the 2 slot is that he did not do his job last year and produce in a RBI slot.  The Astros have holes in there line up just as every team has (except maybe the Yankmees and RSox).  The job of the manager is to find to best solution to score runs.  I am not saying the Phil won't use Morgan in the 2 slot.  I am saying that Morgan does not belong in the two spot and the only reason to put him there is because he is afraid to take the damn bat off of his shoulder and produce as is expected.

[JimR]

here, here Mr. Holic! excellent post.

[Rammer33]

I like Everett and on base is certainly not all there is to hitting second ... but the tools Everett brings to the table - including speed and situational hitting don't in my mind make up for the big deficiency in other areas(namely on base). So in that sense I think Ensberg would be a better #2 because the one area he generally excels – he is just that much better … even though his situational hitting is weaker; that said I would rather not have either hit 2nd …

On another note I know the mentality around here is if ensberg can’t hit 5 then get rid of him but if there is not an adequate everyday replacement for him then I think the smart move is to take advantage of what he does give you … so if you have a position in the lineup open that can take advantage of his ability to get on base then you hit him there (again assuming no one is already performing well there – in which case you are stuck with him lower in the lineup). Ensberg is by no means a bad number 2 hitter the problem is that he is the player with the greatest potential to be a good 5 hitter this year and if he can’t do it then we may have a problem.  However if he can’t serve in that capacity and is doing other things well then the club should take advantage of what he is doing well.

Of course If he is doing nothing well then its and easy choice to sit him and If there is an adequate everyday replacement at third then it’s an easy choice too.

[Andyzipp]

I like Everett and on base is certainly not all there is to hitting second ... but the tools Everett brings to the table - including speed and situational hitting don't in my mind make up for the big deficiency in other areas(namely on base). So in that sense I think Ensberg would be a better #2 because the one area he generally excels – he is just that much better … even though his situational hitting is weaker; that said I would rather not have either hit 2nd …

On another note I know the mentality around here is if ensberg can’t hit 5 then get rid of him but if there is not an adequate everyday replacement for him then I think the smart move is to take advantage of what he does give you … so if you have a position in the lineup open that can take advantage of his ability to get on base then you hit him there (again assuming no one is already performing well there – in which case you are stuck with him lower in the lineup). Ensberg is by no means a bad number 2 hitter the problem is that he is the player with the greatest potential to be a good 5 hitter this year and if he can’t do it then we may have a problem.  However if he can’t serve in that capacity and is doing other things well then the club should take advantage of what he is doing well.

Of course If he is doing nothing well then its and easy choice to sit him and If there is an adequate everyday replacement at third then it’s an easy choice too.

Do you suppose this is why Garner is so hot and heavy to have Burke spraying the ball all over the yard, rather than pulling everything?

[JSAstrosFan]

...if there is not an adequate everyday replacement for him…

What about Loretta?

[Astroholic]

Do you suppose this is why Garner is so hot and heavy to have Burke spraying the ball all over the yard, rather than pulling everything?

I would rather have Clank play everyday at 3rd if Morgan can't do his job.

[CrawfordBoxes]

I would rather have Clank play everyday at 3rd if Morgan can't do his job.

We could use a little balance in the lineup.

[Fredia]

I would rather have Clank play everyday at 3rd if Morgan can't do his job.

ok so what would it take garner to say enough and sit morgan down. and i know this is about his bat, but is his defense enough to keep him there if he finds the superglue again and keeps the bat on the shoulder?

[pravata]

I would rather have Clank play everyday at 3rd if Morgan can't do his job.

"He (Lamb) has to be ready. The other thing is, he's a backup for us. If something happens to Morgan (Ensberg), he's the guy."  Garner http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/4663813.html

[Astroholic]

We could use a little balance in the lineup.

I am not sure what you mean by this statement.

[CrawfordBoxes]

Ensberg is going to be fine...he's healthy, he's ready to go.

[CrawfordBoxes]

I am not sure what you mean by this statement.

The lineup wouldn't be hurt by having an extra lefty in it. Not that I want Ensberg to sit but it would be good from that standpoint.

[Astroholic]

Ensberg is going to be fine...he's healthy, he's ready to go.

I hope like hell you are right, I will just reiterate that he does not belong in the two spot just because he is not doing his job.

[BudGirl]

ok so what would it take garner to say enough and sit morgan down. and i know this is about his bat, but is his defense enough to keep him there if he finds the superglue again and keeps the bat on the shoulder?

Garner did do this at the end of last season.

And everyone wanting Morgan batting in the second spot, who is gonna bat in the 5 spot?  the 6 spot?  Morgan is suppose to be a power hitters, I've never heard of power hitters batting second.

[Rammer33]

I hope like hell you are right, I will just reiterate that he does not belong in the two spot just because he is not doing his job.

I agree thats no reason ... however just to note my original point was, situation permitting you should take advantage of what you can get  (no replacements / no good regular options at 2) ... certainly not hit him 2 because he stinks at 5

for the record I like both Lamb and Loretta as replacements (obviously questions exists as to each’s D long term) - if they are available playing well and morgan can't cut it -

hell, as an aside, if we are talking about a 2 hitter I like Loretta just about as much as anyone hitting second ... 

[Gizzmonic]

So you would rather have "the weak hitting version" of Morgan behind Biggio?

Has anyone considered Luke Scott batting 2nd?  He's a good line drive type hitter, and since he's a lefty, he's more likely to move the runner over with a ground out.  I don't like the idea of AE batting 2nd where he's going to get a ton of PAs...he's just not a good hitter.  Jimahball and the sac bunt didn't work very well, did they?   Put AE back in the 7 hole, and put Burke 6th.  I know it means the Astros will probably get a situational lefty late in the game, but they can counter with Jason Lane.

Anyway, just a wild-ass consideration...

[stubbyc]

Biggio and Everett at the top would make for a lot of Berkman hitting with no one on base. I do not know how you can justify giving 2 of your 3 worst hitters the most at bats on the team.

Hit Ensberg 6th in front of Everett and he'll just wind up walking 100 times again because there would be no reason to pitch to him.

As far as Huff vs. Ensberg, they could have always non-tendered Ensberg if they wanted to. Huff is under contract for less money than Ensberg this year.

[pravata]

Biggio and Everett at the top would make for a lot of Berkman hitting with no one on base. I do not know how you can justify giving 2 of your 3 worst hitters the most at bats on the team.

Hit Ensberg 6th in front of Everett and he'll just wind up walking 100 times again because there would be no reason to pitch to him.

As far as Huff vs. Ensberg, they could have always non-tendered Ensberg if they wanted to. Huff is under contract for less money than Ensberg this year.

You have no idea what Huff was asking for from the Astros.  He caught on with Baltimore at the very last moment.  He miscalculated the market and had to take what he could get.   Berkman was 3rd in the NL in RBI last season and the people hitting in front of him werent on base machines.  Finally, Ensberg, if he's there for his walks, trade him to Oakland for a couple AA pitchers (if they can even get that) and play Lamb and Loretta. 

[stubbyc]

You have no idea what Huff was asking for from the Astros.  He caught on with Baltimore at the very last moment.  He miscalculated the market and had to take what he could get.   Berkman was 3rd in the NL in RBI last season and the people hitting in front of him werent on base machines.  Finally, Ensberg, if he's there for his walks, trade him to Oakland for a couple AA pitchers (if they can even get that) and play Lamb and Loretta. 

No one said Ensberg is here for his walks. It is just much easier for me to see the value of a guy with on base ability in the 2 hole than a guy who fits best in the 8 hole. Everett does not hit the ball to the right side often and he is not a high contact guy. He does not get on base at a high rate. He has speed, but not moreso than Burke. I think Garner's just toying around with the lineup anyways. Ensberg will probably be hitting 5th opening day with Burke in the 2 hole and Everett in the 7 hole.

As far as the "who heard of a power hitter in the 2 hole" argument way above, it's not exactly unheard of. The Mets are going to hit Wright 2nd, the Cardinals have went with Edmonds/Duncan in the 2 hole for the most part the last few years, the Reds hit Dunn 2nd after the Lopez trade, Utley spent a lot of time in the 2 hole last year, etc.

[Momus]

As far as the "who heard of a power hitter in the 2 hole" argument way above, it's not exactly unheard of.

Nor is it entirely clear that Ensberg is really a power hitter. He looked like one in 2005, but that's about all we have to go on. Certainly, we all want him to be one. I don't want to see him standing there with the bat glued to his shoulder. If that's the hitter he is, though, I really don't want to see it in the five-hole. He's not going to be a small-ball kind of #2 hitter, but if he can get on base in front of Berkman and Lee, he might contribute more to the offense than he will by watching pitches in an RBI spot.

I also agree with the assessment of what you want out of a #2 hitter, beyond on-base percentage. I just don't agree that AE does any of those things especially well. He can give himself up without hitting into a double-play. That's about it. Otherwise, he's just a bad hitter and I don't see how his bunting skills are going to make up for all the unproductive outs he racks up.

Anyway, just my views on the subject, and none of it is likely to influence Garner when he fills out the lineup card.

[Astroholic]

Nor is it entirely clear that Ensberg is really a power hitter. He looked like one in 2005, but that's about all we have to go on. Certainly, we all want him to be one. I don't want to see him standing there with the bat glued to his shoulder. If that's the hitter he is, though, I really don't want to see it in the five-hole. He's not going to be a small-ball kind of #2 hitter, but if he can get on base in front of Berkman and Lee, he might contribute more to the offense than he will by watching pitches in an RBI spot.

I also agree with the assessment of what you want out of a #2 hitter, beyond on-base percentage. I just don't agree that AE does any of those things especially well. He can give himself up without hitting into a double-play. That's about it. Otherwise, he's just a bad hitter and I don't see how his bunting skills are going to make up for all the unproductive outs he racks up.

Anyway, just my views on the subject, and none of it is likely to influence Garner when he fills out the lineup card.

So, do you think Morgan will see a lot of strikes if he is hitting second?  Is he capable of hitting those pitches?  It appears to me that some of you think that Morgan would get a lot of walks in the 2 slot, because he did so in the 6 slot last year.  Reasons for those walks were: he was unwilling to swing the bat, and the opposing pitcher was pitching around him due to the holes in the bottom of the Stros lineup in 06. Teams would go after him in the two hole.  IMHO, you need a contact hitter in the two slot. Morgan is not a contact hitter.  He does not shorten his swing with two strikes to put the ball in play.  After the first two months in 06, he did not even have a swing.  You don't need an occasional power hitter that had a ton of walks in the 6 slot hitting 2. 

[Momus]

Hmm? He didn't hit sixth last year. He was mostly hitting "cleanup."

[Astroholic]

Hmm? He didn't hit sixth last year. He was mostly hitting "cleanup."

Whatever.  You are right about one think, he didn't hit last year.

[JimR]

BS to "he's just a bad hitter."

[MikeyBoy]

I also agree with the assessment of what you want out of a #2 hitter, beyond on-base percentage. I just don't agree that AE does any of those things especially well. He can give himself up without hitting into a double-play. That's about it. Otherwise, he's just a bad hitter and I don't see how his bunting skills are going to make up for all the unproductive outs he racks up.

Anyway, just my views on the subject, and none of it is likely to influence Garner when he fills out the lineup card.

It's all about approach, the 7-hole is an RBI spot and Adam got a lot of opportunities last year to drive in runs, which I'm sure was his focus, getting the runs home. In the 2-hole his approach would be a lot different because the situation would dictate as much. So, I don't think it's fair to make an assessment on Adam's skill set based solely on what he did the last few years in the 7-hole. I think he's actually pretty good with the bat and would have no problem hitting behind the runner and making contact when needed. His base running is very good, he doesn't make mistakes and can go first to third, first to home better than anybody on the team. His approach to stealing bases should change too, batting 7th, he was not going to risk an out by attempting to steal a base. At that point, he and Ausmus are trying to turn over the line up. I would imagine AE would be a lot more aggressive on the base paths at the top of the order.

[MikeyBoy]

Biggio and Everett at the top would make for a lot of Berkman hitting with no one on base. I do not know how you can justify giving 2 of your 3 worst hitters the most at bats on the team.

Biggio and Everett were 1st and 4th respectively in number of at bats last season, for the Astros. And you justify it by trying to produce runs as a team, not lining up your best hitters 1 through 8. That's Little League logic.

[utastro]

as far as the "who heard of a power hitter in the 2 hole" argument way above, it's not exactly unheard of. The Mets are going to hit Wright 2nd, the Cardinals have went with Edmonds/Duncan in the 2 hole for the most part the last few years, the Reds hit Dunn 2nd after the Lopez trade, Utley spent a lot of time in the 2 hole last year, etc.

Didn't the Astros bat Beltran in the 2 hole?  Granted that the Astros offense that year had power up and down the lineup, but he is an example of a power hitter in the 2 hole.

[Astroholic]

Biggio and Everett were 1st and 4th respectively in number of at bats last season, for the Astros. And you justify it by trying to produce runs as a team, not lining up your best hitters 1 through 8. That's Little League logic.

Or fantasy logic.  The fundamentals of baseball (especially small ball) are being lost.  This is due to many reasons.  I blame it on fantasy bb, steroids, scooter, clarks, video games, etc.  Okay, I am off of the box.

[Astroholic]

Didn't the Astros bat Beltran in the 2 hole?  Granted that the Astros offense that year had power up and down the lineup, but he is an example of a power hitter in the 2 hole.

True, but Beltran knows how to handle the bat.  He is a contact hitter first that just happens to have power.  That team also had several power hitters behind Beltran.

[JimR]

It's all about approach, the 7-hole is an RBI spot and Adam got a lot of opportunities last year to drive in runs, which I'm sure was his focus, getting the runs home. In the 2-hole his approach would be a lot different because the situation would dictate as much. So, I don't think it's fair to make an assessment on Adam's skill set based solely on what he did the last few years in the 7-hole. I think he's actually pretty good with the bat and would have no problem hitting behind the runner and making contact when needed. His base running is very good, he doesn't make mistakes and can go first to third, first to home better than anybody on the team. His approach to stealing bases should change too, batting 7th, he was not going to risk an out by attempting to steal a base. At that point, he and Ausmus are trying to turn over the line up. I would imagine AE would be a lot more aggressive on the base paths at the top of the order.

Mikey understands.

[Astroholic]

Mikey understands.

Yep.

[MikeyBoy]

Didn't the Astros bat Beltran in the 2 hole? 

Yes, he was inserted there when the then current number two hitter had his season ended with a broken arm. That number two hitter was Adam Everett, where he hit .290 and had an OBP of .330 in 338 at bats in the 2-hole.

[Jacksonian]

Yes, he was inserted there when the then current number two hitter had his season ended with a broken arm. That number two hitter was Adam Everett, where he hit .290 and had an OBP of .330 in 338 at bats in the 2-hole.

When Everett is charged with getting on base rather than driving in runs he looks like a completely different hitter.

[mihoba]

Yes, he was inserted there when the then current number two hitter had his season ended with a broken arm. That number two hitter was Adam Everett, where he hit .290 and had an OBP of .330 in 338 at bats in the 2-hole.

You know, thats a damn good point. He also scored 61 runs in his 84 games batting second that year, and had 13 SBs with only 1 CS.

[Astroholic]

You know, thats a damn good point. He also scored 61 runs in his 84 games batting second that year, and had 13 SBs with only 1 CS.

Adam has had success in the 2 hole.  Burke might be able to do it.  I can't believe that Morgan will get any AB's in the two hole.  If he can't produce it the 6 slot, get rid of his ass.

[Froback]

Ok, let's just or the sake of arguement start the batting order like this:

Biggio
Everett
Berkman
Lee

Who bats 5th, Scott or Ensberg?

For me, I would put Scott there, but Ensberg has more experience (for what ever that is worth).  So Garner may put Morgan there.  IF he does put Scott in the 5 spot, I would actually argue for Burke in the 6th spot over Ensberg, arguing that it is more of a "get on base" than drive in runs spot for the 2nd half of the line-up.

Also if your 3 weakest batters (sans pitcher) are Ausmus, Everett and Burke, seperating them couldn't hurt.

So I would end up with an order of

Biggio
Everett
Berkman
Lee
Scott
Burke
Ensberg
Ausmus
Pitcher

How does that grab you.  You also spread out your power potential a little better.  It also becomes harder to pick out a group of 3 and say if so-and-so is leading off this should be an easy inning for the opposing pitcher.  Just a thought.

[Astroholic]

Ok, let's just or the sake of arguement start the batting order like this:

Biggio
Everett
Berkman
Lee

Who bats 5th, Scott or Ensberg?

For me, I would put Scott there, but Ensberg has more experience (for what ever that is worth).  So Garner may put Morgan there.  IF he does put Scott in the 5 spot, I would actually argue for Burke in the 6th spot over Ensberg, arguing that it is more of a "get on base" than drive in runs spot for the 2nd half of the line-up.

Also if your 3 weakest batters (sans pitcher) are Ausmus, Everett and Burke, seperating them couldn't hurt.

So I would end up with an order of

Biggio
Everett
Berkman
Lee
Scott
Burke
Ensberg
Ausmus
Pitcher

How does that grab you.  You also spread out your power potential a little better.  It also becomes harder to pick out a group of 3 and say if so-and-so is leading off this should be an easy inning for the opposing pitcher.  Just a thought.

 

I think I could go with that.  If Morgan is not producing and you have Lamb in, I would switch 6 and 7.  If Loretta is playing, he would bat 2nd and I probably would move Everett into leadoff and move Bidge down to 6.  Of coarse, this depends upon how these players are playing at the time and the opposing pitcher.  That is why Garner gets paid the big bucks.

[strosrays]

Yes, he was inserted there when the then current number two hitter had his season ended with a broken arm. That number two hitter was Adam Everett, where he hit .290 and had an OBP of .330 in 338 at bats in the 2-hole.

As an aside, Everett's full line hitting #2 in 2003 was .290/.330/.402.  The NL league average #2 hitter that season was .277/.337/.411.

So in that sense, Everett was at least league average.  And if you take into account batting average - and in this context, where it has come up that putting the bat on the ball is important, an argument could be made one should - Everett was actually an above average #2 hitter the season he was put there to do the job full-time.

(For anyone interested, at the time of his injury Everett was in the midst of a pretty good offensive run - his overall average and OBP had risen 20 points or more each over the previous month, and his slugging % had gone up 50 points.  Missing the last two months might actually have kept his offensive numbers lower than they would have been, rather than other way around.)

A good explanation for his 22 sacrifice bunts that season is harder to come by.  Except to say holding that against Everett doesn't make much sense to me unless he was doing it on his own, which I doubt.  And - oh yeah - Garner isn't Jimy.

[mihoba]

So I would end up with an order of

Biggio
Everett
Berkman
Lee
Scott
Burke
Ensberg
Ausmus
Pitcher

How does that grab you.  You also spread out your power potential a little better.  It also becomes harder to pick out a group of 3 and say if so-and-so is leading off this should be an easy inning for the opposing pitcher.  Just a thought.

That reminds me so much of the Earl Weaver style batting order. Basically have two clean up hitters. Ol' Earl liked to see a single, walk, and three-run homer, all while smoking cigs in the tunnel and silently cussing Jim Palmer.

[Taras Bulba]

I know a guy who played for Weaver in the short lived Senior Baseball League or whatever it was called in Florida.  He said Weaver was the most gifted curser he has ever been around.

[Astroholic]

That reminds me so much of the Earl Weaver style batting order. Basically have two clean up hitters. Ol' Earl liked to see a single, walk, and three-run homer, all while smoking cigs in the tunnel and silently cussing Jim Palmer.

It could be used that way, or if you needed one run you could play small ball in front of Berk, Lee.

[Momus]

As an aside, Everett's full line hitting #2 in 2003 was .290/.330/.402.  The NL league average #2 hitter that season was .277/.337/.411.

That was 2004, I think, when he was hitting #2. If he can do that consistently in the #2 spot, that's great. I'm not convinced, but I'd love to be proved wrong. I'd like to emphasize that I think he's a great baseball player and needs to be out there every day. If it will make Jim feel better, I'll even allow that he's a good hitter who somehow just gets really bad results. I hope, though, that we don't have to argue about whether the results the last couple years have been "good" or "bad." I checked the glossary, and these terms don't seem to have different meanings on the site.

[stubbyc]

Biggio and Everett were 1st and 4th respectively in number of at bats last season, for the Astros. And you justify it by trying to produce runs as a team, not lining up your best hitters 1 through 8. That's Little League logic.

Wow. Who suggested we just bat our best hitters 1 through 8? Strawman.

[strosrays]

That reminds me so much of the Earl Weaver style batting order. Basically have two clean up hitters. Ol' Earl liked to see a single, walk, and three-run homer, all while smoking cigs in the tunnel and silently cussing Jim Palmer.

The same Earl Weaver who made "all-glove" SS Mark Belanger a regular, and batted him at #1 and especially #2 a fair amount of the time.

Also, a Weaver lineup would've had at least a couple of full-time platoons going on, on the order of Al Bumbry-Merv Rettenmund; John Lowenstein-Benny Ayala and/or Gary Roenicke; and of course the long-time platoon at catcher with Elrod Hendricks and Andy Etchebarren.

You are right about Weaver's grasp of the language.  If you want to hear something really funny, listen to this (preferably with headphones, if at work):  Earl Weaver in top form.

Weaver was famous for fighting all the time with some of his players - Jim Palmer, among others.  And I believe it was relief pitcher Don Stanhouse, who was effective for a few seasons but was always wild or about to be, who made Weaver so nervous when he was pitching late in close games that Weaver couldn't watch.  He'd sit down in the tunnel chain-smoking.  For this, the Oriole players nicknamed Stanhouse "Pack-And-A-Half".

[strosrays]

Wow. Who suggested we just bat our best hitters 1 through 8? Strawman.

Go back and read through the thread.

[Astroholic]

That was 2004, I think, when he was hitting #2. If he can do that consistently in the #2 spot, that's great. I'm not convinced, but I'd love to be proved wrong. I'd like to emphasize that I think he's a great baseball player and needs to be out there every day. If it will make Jim feel better, I'll even allow that he's a good hitter who somehow just gets really bad results. I hope, though, that we don't have to argue about whether the results the last couple years have been "good" or "bad." I checked the glossary, and these terms don't seem to have different meanings on the site.

But back to the original idea, do you think Morgan would fit in better in the two slot?  Better than Adam, Burke ,Loretta or Biggio?

[stubbyc]

True, but Beltran knows how to handle the bat.  He is a contact hitter first that just happens to have power.  That team also had several power hitters behind Beltran.

Beltran is not a contact hitter.

[Astroholic]

Beltran is not a contact hitter.

Semantics.  I could say Beltran is not a power hitter.

[strosrays]

That reminds me so much of the Earl Weaver style batting order. Basically have two clean up hitters. Ol' Earl liked to see a single, walk, and three-run homer, all while smoking cigs in the tunnel and silently cussing Jim Palmer.

From the same site, Lee Elia (then managing the Cubs) going off on Cub beat reporters.  This is artistry, folks.

The best assessment of Cub fans, ever.

[Momus]

But back to the original idea, do you think Morgan would fit in better in the two slot?  Better than Adam, Burke ,Loretta or Biggio?

You're asking me to repeat myself. I think 2006-vintage Ensberg is a better fit for the #2 than 2006-vintage Everett. I'd rather see 2005-vintage Ensberg hitting in the five-hole and 2004-vintage AE hitting #2, but I don't think I'm going to see either of those things.

(And Loretta is probably close enough to an idea #2 hitter.)

[Astroholic]

You're asking me to repeat myself. I think 2006-vintage Ensberg is a better fit for the #2 than 2006-vintage Everett. I'd rather see 2005-vintage Ensberg hitting in the five-hole and 2004-vintage AE hitting #2, but I don't think I'm going to see either of those things.

(And Loretta is probably close enough to an idea #2 hitter.)

Okay, I am done.

[mihoba]

From the same site, Lee Elia (then managing the Cubs) going off on Cub beat reporters.  This is artistry, folks.

The best assessment of Cub fans, ever.

The Weaver file didn't want to load for me, but this one was fuckin' perfect.

[Bench]

  Earl Weaver in top form.

Now that was fucking awesome.

[Astroholic]

Now that was fucking awesome.

I can't believe that actually was played on the air.  Must have been prerecorded.  non the less, it is classic.

[JimR]

note to self:

continue to ignore stubbyCaptainBitcherc--check

begin to ignore Momus--check

[WulawHorn]

I'd love to see Loretta hitting in the two hole whenever he plays- perfect guy for that spot on this team (Beltran was the all time perfect 2 hitter in my mind).

If he's playing for Bidge then lead off Burke. If he's playinig for Moberg then Lamb hits 5 or 7, with Burke in the 6th spot to split up the lefties.

I don't like the idea of 2006 Everett hitting 2nd, but I'm ok with it on the assumption it breaks up everett, ausmus, pitcher, which is a cruise of an innning, generally.  If Everett hits like he did in the 2 spot like 2004 then great- leave him there the entire year.

[Froback]

Maybe it had to do with personel last year, but Garner did swaps last year where Person B replaced Person A in the line-up and batted in the same spot as Person A.

As an example, there were several times Lamb played for Berkman and hit 3rd.

It was not an always type of thing, but I figure that if Loretta plays for Biggio we probably will see him lead-off so as not to mess with the comfort the other players have for their spot in the line-up...  But that is just me.

[strosrays]

I can't believe that actually was played on the air.  Must have been prerecorded.  non the less, it is classic.

It was a pre-recorded piece.  I don't believe the announcer knew going in what Weaver was going to do.  If not, I give him some credit for maintaining his composure and, once he did catch on, continuing to feed Weaver straight lines with aplomb.

[Astroholic]

It was a pre-recorded piece.  I don't believe the announcer knew going in what Weaver was going to do.  If not, I give him some credit for maintaining his composure and, once he did catch on, continuing to feed Weaver straight lines with aplomb.

Yep, all around classic.

[VirtualBob]

note to self:

continue to ignore stubbyCaptainBitcherc--check

begin to ignore Momus--check

You're slowing up in your old age.

[ybbodeus]

As a professing Christian, I've always enjoyed the line on Earl's "testimony", if you will, about how he didn't want any Christians on his team, ala Harry Dean Stanton in Repo Man.

"Can't have any of those damn Christians on my team.  They strike out with runners in scoring position, hit into an inning ending double play, miss a cut-off man, drop a fly ball, make an error, lose a game, it's always 'God's will."  I don't want that infectious bull$hit around MY team."

[Lefty]

Dammit!  Did anybody catch all of Gar on Palillo's show?  Interview just ended, I only caught the last minute or so.  He was discussing Ensberg in the 2-hole & Burke hitting 6th, I missed his comments on Mo, but he said of Burke:

2-hole requires you to work deep into the count, hit behind runners, sometimes give yourself up; that doesn't really play into Burke's game, he's at his best when he can just do his thing, "go up to the plate and do what he thinks he needs to do".  Feels that fits better at 6th.

Wish I'd heard the whole thing.  Maybe it'll be archived on their site or something later.

[Noe]

2-hole requires you to work deep into the count, hit behind runners, sometimes give yourself up; that doesn't really play into Burke's game, he's at his best when he can just do his thing,

The reality is that he's right but Burke is a leadoff guy in the Biggio sense and the real #2 is Adam Everett given that criteria.

Not Morgan Ensberg.

[VirtualBob]

The reality is that he's right but Burke is a leadoff guy in the Biggio sense and the real #2 is Adam Everett given that criteria.

Not Morgan Ensberg.

Right.  What we need is

1.  Burke (hitting it up the middle per Gar's tutelage)
2.  Everett (for all the reasons Mikey & JimR keep mentioning)
3.  Berkman
4.  Lee
5.  Ensberg  (if he can swing the bat) [else Scott/Lane]
6.  Scott/Lane (if Ensberg can swing the bat) [else Lamb]
7.  Biggio (which, of course, will not happen until after 3000)
8.  Ausmus (unless Gar thinks he can get away with moving the pitcher to #8.  Wandy & Sampson both swing the bat pretty well.)

[Lefty]

The reality is that he's right but Burke is a leadoff guy in the Biggio sense and the real #2 is Adam Everett given that criteria.

Yep.  I'd love to see Burke-AE at the top with Bidge 7th, especially later in the year when Craig slows down.  Burke-Loretta w/ AE 7th when applicable.

Really wish I'd heard his thinking on Mo.  I honestly don't see why, at least to start the season, you wouldn't pencil him in the 5-hole everyday & see what he does.  I also don't know why they're even putting the idea of becoming a top of the order hitter in Mo's head.  I guess I'm just hopeful that his 2006 approach was the result of not being physically able to hit like he wanted, and was compensating by using the skill he had left - plate discipline.

Whoever said earlier that we'll see a bunch of lineups this year, outside of Berkman/Lee, is on the money I believe.  Gar's juggling the past couple of years has been more out of necessity than choice, and it would be verrrry nice if they can settle into something semi-regular this season.

[Twoniner]

Dammit!  Did anybody catch all of Gar on Palillo's show?  Interview just ended, I only caught the last minute or so.  He was discussing Ensberg in the 2-hole & Burke hitting 6th, I missed his comments on Mo, but he said of Burke:

2-hole requires you to work deep into the count, hit behind runners, sometimes give yourself up; that doesn't really play into Burke's game, he's at his best when he can just do his thing, "go up to the plate and do what he thinks he needs to do".  Feels that fits better at 6th.

Wish I'd heard the whole thing.  Maybe it'll be archived on their site or something later.

He said we aren't going to be running in front of Berkman and Lee so speed isn't needed.  Said Ensberg has been great at getting on base and that 6 hole would fit Burke better because he won't have to worry about hitting behind runners, working the count.  Burke is better when he just goes up there and gets a pitch and hits it.    He definitely was talking like that was the direction they would go early on.    I'm in the minority agreeing with it.   People are overblowing the stuff about the #2 hole having to move runners over.    First of all...  You are assuming Biggio is on base, which only happens about 30% of the time.   70% of the time you guys are going to have Adam Everett up there moving a ghost runner over with a ground ball, and Berkman will be coming up with two outs.     If someone does get on first, who says you have to move him over for Berkman and Lee?    Lance had 74 extra base hits last year so the guy from first is going to score a good chunk of the time anyways, no great need to give up outs here.     With Ensberg you have a MUCH better chance of getting somebody on in front of Lance and Lee all of those times Biggio isn't on base, and Morgan will definitely get more pitches to hit in front of Lance, which should help to open up his power game, if it is still there.    I think Burke can do fine in the 6 hole cleaning up some RBI's and it will open it up for him to run, where steals are valuable in front of Everett and Ausmus who hit over 70% singles.     Scott and/or Lane need to hold down the 5 hole for it to work.

[JimR]

ok, enough. someone lock this puppy.

[Noe]

With Ensberg you have a MUCH better chance of getting somebody on in front of Lance and Lee all of those times Biggio isn't on base, and Morgan will definitely get more pitches to hit in front of Lance, which should help to open up his power game, if it is still there.

What good is a power game at the two hole with Biggio getting on at a 30% clip?

[ybbodeus]

ok, enough. someone lock this puppy.

As they say at the Baptist church...."And all the people said?"  

Oh, the response to all you unwashed in the blood types is Amen.

[Noe]

All I'm saying is that in many respects, Garner is conceding that Morgan Ensberg has the game of a 2 hole hitter and not a middle of the lineup hitter.  That is not a good thing he's saying in terms of Morgan, that is a bad thing.

Consider this: Morgan Ensberg has not had a top of the lineup responsibility in his entire professional career.  He has been used as a middle of the lineup guy.  Now, he's being moved up to a position that is telling in some regards.

Is it more that he's a good #2 or is more that he is a really bad #5.

[Astroholic]

All I'm saying is that in many respects, Garner is conceding that Morgan Ensberg has the game of a 2 hole hitter and not a middle of the lineup hitter.  That is not a good thing he's saying in terms of Morgan, that is a bad thing.

Consider this: Morgan Ensberg has not had a top of the lineup responsibility in his entire professional career.  He has been used as a middle of the lineup guy.  Now, he's being moved up to a position that is telling in some regards.

Is it more that he's a good #2 or is more that he is a really bad #5.

My Fucking head is about to explode.

[Noe]

My bad, haven't been reading lately.  Been there, done that, eh?

Okay, nevermind on this... move along, no more to see... keep moving!  You! Over there... keep MOVING!

[chuck]

The Weaver file didn't want to load for me, but this one was fuckin' perfect.

Kind sir, I recommend that you figure out what the problem is and make it work because it's one of the funniest things I've ever heard. I'm now sitting here wondering what good old Earl might have said regarding the notion of batting Mo in the second spot.

When is the best time to plant a tomato, by the way? Right about now?

[NeilT]

When is the best time to plant a tomato, by the way? Right about now?

Late February, then August or September.

[Astroholic]

Late February, then August or September.

Neil, you didnt listen to the Earl Weaver sound bite, did you?

[NeilT]

Neil, you didnt listen to the Earl Weaver sound bite, did you?

Weaver had it wrong.  True love and homegrown tomatoes are closely related.

http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/clark-guy/homegrown-tomatoes-12.html

[Astroholic]

Weaver had it wrong.  True love and homegrown tomatoes are closely related.

http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/clark-guy/homegrown-tomatoes-12.html

Agreed.  I have 5 plants on my patio in the back yard.  Have a couple of greenies on the vine.  I can already taste them.

[strosrays]

Agreed.  I have 5 plants on my patio in the back yard.  Have a couple of greenies on the vine.  I can already taste them.

Weaver has a vivid description in his book Its What You Learn After You Know It All That Counts covering some of his secrets of tomato-growing success.  One I recall particularly is lots and lots of horse manure - Weaver didn't mind going and spending some time at the track to get it - which he mixed with water and some other things and used for fertilizer.  He talks about carrying around buckets of this gooey and I am guessing rather pungent slop to pour over his plants.

I can attest to the horse manure part.  About ten years ago we took a low-boy up to the "country" place of a friend who kept several horses and we spent an afternoon loading the trailer up with the what comes out of the south end of a north-bound quarterhorse.  This was in late fall.  Came home and piled it all onto the leaves and lime and other stuff already all over the garden, which BTW is pretty big for in town (30 x 40 or so). 

That next spring I went out to turn it over before planting and the soil, which is the natural gumbo clay and some sand and 60/40 we put in there over time, was dark and rich and moist and grainy, and literally alive with big fat earthworms.  Since then the tomatos, leaf lettuce, banana peppers, leeks, squash, Kentucky wonders, bell peppers, and everything else my wife has planted out there has come in great and plentiful.  All late spring and summer I can go out there in the evening and pick 80% of my dinner, a nice big garden salad and a couple of vegetables.

We have repeated the manure procedure every other year since.  I've never tried mixing it up the way Weaver does, though.  I think liquefying it probably helps it mix into the soil quicker, if you don't have all winter to let it compost.

[Astroholic]

Weaver has a vivid description in his book Its What You Learn After You Know It All That Counts covering some of his secrets of tomato-growing success.  One I recall particularly is lots and lots of horse manure - Weaver didn't mind going and spending some time at the track to get it - which he mixed with water and some other things and used for fertilizer.  He talks about carrying around buckets of this gooey and I am guessing rather pungent slop to pour over his plants.

I can attest to the horse manure part.  About ten years ago we took a low-boy up to the "country" place of a friend who kept several horses and we spent an afternoon loading the trailer up with the what comes out of the south end of a north-bound quarterhorse.  This was in late fall.  Came home and piled it all onto the leaves and lime and other stuff already all over the garden, which BTW is pretty big for in town (30 x 40 or so). 

That next spring I went out to turn it over before planting and the soil, which is the natural gumbo clay and some sand and 60/40 we put in there over time, was dark and rich and moist and grainy, and literally alive with big fat earthworms.  Since then the tomatos, leaf lettuce, banana peppers, leeks, squash, Kentucky wonders, bell peppers, and everything else my wife has planted out there has come in great and plentiful.  All late spring and summer I can go out there in the evening and pick 80% of my dinner, a nice big garden salad and a couple of vegetables.

We have repeated the manure procedure every other year since.  I've never tried mixing it up the way Weaver does, though.  I think liquefying it probably helps it mix into the soil quicker, if you don't have all winter to let it compost.

 

I have, in the past raised dutch rabbits.  Their pellets are also very good fertilizer. 

I am damn glad people might be getting something useful from this tread, finally!

[NeilT]

Weaver has a vivid description in his book Its What You Learn After You Know It All That Counts covering some of his secrets of tomato-growing success.  One I recall particularly is lots and lots of horse manure - Weaver didn't mind going and spending some time at the track to get it - which he mixed with water and some other things and used for fertilizer.  He talks about carrying around buckets of this gooey and I am guessing rather pungent slop to pour over his plants.

I can attest to the horse manure part.  About ten years ago we took a low-boy up to the "country" place of a friend who kept several horses and we spent an afternoon loading the trailer up with the what comes out of the south end of a north-bound quarterhorse.  This was in late fall.  Came home and piled it all onto the leaves and lime and other stuff already all over the garden, which BTW is pretty big for in town (30 x 40 or so). 

That next spring I went out to turn it over before planting and the soil, which is the natural gumbo clay and some sand and 60/40 we put in there over time, was dark and rich and moist and grainy, and literally alive with big fat earthworms.  Since then the tomatos, leaf lettuce, banana peppers, leeks, squash, Kentucky wonders, bell peppers, and everything else my wife has planted out there has come in great and plentiful.  All late spring and summer I can go out there in the evening and pick 80% of my dinner, a nice big garden salad and a couple of vegetables.

We have repeated the manure procedure every other year since.  I've never tried mixing it up the way Weaver does, though.  I think liquefying it probably helps it mix into the soil quicker, if you don't have all winter to let it compost.

That's horseshit.

[Astroholic]

That's horseshit.

As was much of the tread.

[strosrays]

As was much of the tread.

Berkman and C-Lee are the tomatos and lettuce of the offensive salad.  Biggio and Burke and Scottlane will be banana peppers, cucumbers, kernel corn, red and yellow bell peppers and the like.  Ausmus is the goat cheese, and Everett the dressing -- Bleu or Romano cheese (Mmmmmm...), or, if you must, some kind of light balsamic vinagrette.

Ensberg, if he pulls his head out and reverts to odd-season form, could be some really good garlic 'n' cheese croutons.  Otherwise, he's a fucking radish or some other kind of crap you have to pick out of the salad and set off to the side before you can eat it.

[Astroholic]

Ensberg, if he pulls his head out and reverts to odd-season form, could be some really good garlic 'n' cheese croutons.  Otherwise, he's a fucking radish or some other kind of crap you have to pick out of the salad and set off to the side before you can eat it.
[/quote]

And the Radish is not the "second" thing you throw out.

[EasTexAstro]

 

I have, in the past raised dutch rabbits.  Their pellets are also very good fertilizer. 

I am damn glad people might be getting something useful from this tread, finally!

And, for those East Texas type people, see if you can get some chicken droppings at the chicken houses. Great stuff.

[mihoba]

Is the OD lineup set? From astros.com

1. 2B Craig Biggio
2. CF Chris Burke
3. 1B Lance Berkman
4. LF Carlos Lee
5. 3B Morgan Ensberg
6. RF Luke Scott
7. SS Adam Everett
8. C Brad Ausmus
9. P Roy Oswalt

[DVauthrin]

I like the lineup except I would prefer to see biggio hitting 6th or 7th in an RBI spot with burke leadoff everett 2nd.  And OBP is nice and all, but if morgan ensberg refuses to drive the ball, mike lamb has to start and i'd sandwich him and scott around biggio at 5-6-7.

The number two hitter in any lineup has to be adept at stuff like hit and run/sac bunting, which is much more suited to everett than is ensberg.

[mihoba]

I like the lineup except I would prefer to see biggio hitting 6th or 7th in an RBI spot with burke leadoff everett 2nd.

Well, you know that won't happen unless Pig Pen totally tanks before he reaches his magic number.

[Astroholic]

I like the lineup except I would prefer to see biggio hitting 6th or 7th in an RBI spot with burke leadoff everett 2nd.  And OBP is nice and all, but if morgan ensberg refuses to drive the ball, mike lamb has to start and i'd sandwich him and scott around biggio at 5-6-7.

The number two hitter in any lineup has to be adept at stuff like hit and run/sac bunting, which is much more suited to everett than is ensberg.

I am not trying to be rude, but this point has been made many times in this post.  Just can't change some peoples ideas about this.  Oh well, opinions are like assholes.....